Teddy Bridgewater likely on the outs in Carolina

[KSpan]

9 hours ago, SizzleBuzz said:

Gotcha.

Let's approach it another way, do you believe it's in the best interests of the Panthers to pay out Teddy's contract in-full and also cut him thereby getting absolutely nothing in return?

Is that a sensible path?

 

Majority of the salary is now a sunk cost (to what degree is variable across a spectrum), so the decision comes down to what the team values for that sunk cost. If they place higher value on the roster spot/flexibility in having other players potentially see the field/etc then that's what they're buying with the cost associated with the decision to cut/trade. If they place higher value on having Teddy on the roster for X/Y/Z reason(s) then that's what they're buying with the sunk cost of the decision to retain.

My opinion is that while neither is optimal the team is better off in the former scenario, but there is a long time to go between now and the season. Teddy's presence itself is binary amongst the spectrum of possible financial outcomes. At this point the team seems fine with possibly being without Teddy even if, at a minimum, a good portion of the salary remains. It stands to reason they are leaning toward the former option rather than the latter, supported by the comments at the end of the season and start of the offseason.

[MechaZain]

So who had "Trade QB to New Orleans" on their Carolina Panthers bingo card

[Varking]

12 hours ago, BurnNChinn said:

Thank you he don’t know anything, fixing to put him on ignore he’s not smart.

It’s one of the best decisions I’ve made on this site. You still see his posts when others quote him but it’s a ton better. 

[SizzleBuzz]

3 hours ago, KSpan said:

Majority of the salary is now a sunk cost (to what degree is variable across a spectrum), so the decision comes down to what the team values for that sunk cost. If they place higher value on the roster spot/flexibility in having other players potentially see the field/etc then that's what they're buying with the cost associated with the decision to cut/trade. If they place higher value on having Teddy on the roster for X/Y/Z reason(s) then that's what they're buying with the sunk cost of the decision to retain.

My opinion is that while neither is optimal the team is better off in the former scenario, but there is a long time to go between now and the season. Teddy's presence itself is binary amongst the spectrum of possible financial outcomes. At this point the team seems fine with possibly being without Teddy even if, at a minimum, a good portion of the salary remains. It stands to reason they are leaning toward the former option rather than the latter, supported by the comments at the end of the season and start of the offseason.

Unlike the other 99.8%...

...you do deserve credit for  a modicum of logic and a somewhat cogent position.

Good onya mate.

Edited April 13, 2021 by SizzleBuzz